Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?
By Patrick J. Michaels, NRO:
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
[...]
All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Archives
- May 2012 (401)
- April 2012 (624)
- March 2012 (635)
- February 2012 (782)
- January 2012 (672)
- December 2011 (519)
- November 2011 (361)
- October 2011 (539)
- September 2011 (500)
- August 2011 (584)
- July 2011 (523)
- June 2011 (451)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
